Would like your thoughts on how IQ compares between the two RAW formats particularly in 1DX, but perhaps it is equally interesting to hear from 5D3 and other users given the difference in sensor pixel density.

Do we have a "firm" sense of what canon is doing in downsampling or could that information be gleaned from real world testing some may have done? The general idea may be the same between the bodies but if they are binning (whatever the nuances), does this predict diminishing returns or even adverse returns with larger and larger pixels? Obviously 1DX and 5D3 are very different animals and several significant parameters other than just pixel density differ between the two and I realize this is a caveat.

lmcmalo

M-RAW on Canon cameras has some extra quirks, in addition to the obvious lower resolution. The demosaic process is done in the camera for MRAW files, at least this was true for all cameras before the 5D3, I could not verify that it is still the case for the 5D3 and 1DX - I would bet it still is, things move slowly in Canon-land. I am not sure what MRAW and SRAM are intended for, maybe special applications where it's important to keep the 12 bits at smaller resolution and be able to store thousands of shots. I do not know - I am most curious as of why one wants to use MRAW?

I have not seen yet a well done IQ compare between the two cameras (at full RAW). They are so different at other levels as you mention. If what I shoot is slow moving, low ISO, I go with the 5d3. In these conditions, both cameras have awesome IQ and pixel count (not to mention small size and weight) wins. When shooting high ISO (or obviously fast action), this is another story. I shoot indoors at 25K ISO with the 1dx, pretty much ditched the flash. It requires to shoot raw and know what you're doing in LR or Camera Raw, but works great. 1DX allows for shooting things that were not possible before.

Logged

scottc

I am not sure what MRAW and SRAM are intended for, maybe special applications where it's important to keep the 12 bits at smaller resolution and be able to store thousands of shots. I do not know - I am most curious as of why one wants to use MRAW?

I shoot a 5d3, and always shoot mRAW during getting ready photos and receptions at weddings - the only times that couples are really going to blow their pics up is during the portraits, so that's when I shoot full RAW. While many gripe about the 5d3 being "only" 22 mp, that is still far too big for me to want to deal with for an entire wedding. Managing that much data for 30+ weddings throughout the season is especially difficult when you factor in backups and archives, so, imho, that is precisely what the smaller raw files are for - people who shoot massive amounts of pics but still need/want the extra flexibility of raw.

And on the IQ front - I honestly haven't noticed any difference between when I shoot full or m raw, but I am by no means a pixel peeper. They both seem to have similar flexibility in LR, but I've never really done a true test. I'd say that even if the IQ was, say, 5-10% worse, it would still be worth it with the size savings.

I shoot a 5d3, and always shoot mRAW during getting ready photos and receptions at weddings - the only times that couples are really going to blow their pics up is during the portraits, so that's when I shoot full RAW. While many gripe about the 5d3 being "only" 22 mp, that is still far too big for me to want to deal with for an entire wedding. Managing that much data for 30+ weddings throughout the season is especially difficult when you factor in backups and archives, so, imho, that is precisely what the smaller raw files are for - people who shoot massive amounts of pics but still need/want the extra flexibility of raw.

My primary body is 1DX and I have mostly stuck to RAW or jpeg L on rare occasions. And good many times I shoot in bursts and the workflow and logistics involved have slowly moved me to reconsider. But on a more pedantic level, this got me looking into how much we actually know or don't know about the algorithms, likely varied among the different bodies, and the effect on IQ.

I do often use mraw on my 60D when shooting wedding. Mainly to save space and time when i back up.Before using this smaller raw file I took a sample picture with sraw+ Ljpg and printed 30x45 cm the L JPG and the smaller jpeg i got from the raw and did not notice any difference. The I started using it when i don't need the maximum resolution.Diego

i "like" the idea of smaller file sizes - that eases my concern about how much HD space i'm going to be taking

and as someone who shoots sports/action (primarily triathlons/ironmans with thousands of competitors and shooting in high-speed continuous in bursts with a 1DX) this is definitely a concern -- as well as the very practical consideration of CF card size - a fast body such as the 1DX requires a fast card (expensive) and also requires more capacity (expensive)

so the appeal of mRAW and sRAW is real

but (!) the best features of DPP (DLO, aberration corrections, etc) are not available to mRAW and sRAW formats

consequently, i am constrained to the RAW format if i want to have the full flexibility and the features of DPP

i shoot with two cards - one shooting full RAW, the other shooting small JPG (the small card is actually an eye-FI card that is paired to my nexus7 tablet - this allows me to upload a good photo to social networking sites as needed or view an image in a large format easily)

Unless you have a specific workflow-related reason to *NOT* shoot full RAW, there's no reason to shoot anything else.

If you're on assignment for somebody and said somebody has a specific setting, you obviously use that, no matter how silly it might seem to you. I've heard that Sports Illustrated only wants JPEGs, but I wouldn't even bet a cup of coffee that that's the case.

If your shots are going straight to the Web and nowhere else without any editing other than culling, you should shoot sRGB JPEG at your camera's lowest resolution (which will still be overkill). You should also use whatever picture style, sharpening, white balance, etc., settings that produce the results you want, and you should do whatever you need to to the exposure so that it looks good on the back of the camera.

Both cameras have ridiculously deep buffers even with full-resolution RAW...but, if you do happen to be in a situation where you need even more, shooting M-RAW or JPEG will practically let you fill up the card before the buffer fills up.

But for 95% of photographic situations where it makes sense to use one of these cameras in the first place, you should be shooting full RAW. Storage and processing power are cheap. Having to throw away that rare extra-special shot because you didn't nail the exposure or you can't enlarge it enough or whatever will cost far more than you might ever save by not spending another $200 on CF cards or hard disks.